Petro is right to point out that third largest party does not mean being the third most influential. But by any standards Perot is much more influential than an Libertarian candidate. Perot has managed to get his views onto the national agenda., Browne has not. The only mainstream party to have been in any measure influenced by libertarian ideas is the Republicans who are also the party of extreeme social authoritarianism, even if they don't believe in it they have to fawn on Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition to get through the primaries. As for what happens in 2000 it does not appear that the Republicans will have extricated itself from the religious right's grip. This will probaly mean that they end up putting up another compromise candidate like Dole. With Clinton sitting so far to the right its very difficult for the Republicans to find any response. Unless something happens to change things I don't see any likelyhood of change the next time round. The only factor likely to change anything would be for Congress to take campaign finance reform seriously. I doubt that that is going to happen because the last Congress sold favours more openly than any since 1876. During the Communications Decency Act politicing I was somewhat suprised to find out the cost of the lobbying effort, after all it shouldn't take more than a few plane tickets to send the right people down to DC. Then I found out that the main cost was buying into the committee system to get a hearing. I'm not saying that one side or the other is worse but the tone of the Congress was pretty much set by Newt Gingrtich accepting an inaugural bribe of a couple of million from Murdoch, alledged advance payment for a book that was pulped. There are good reasons why the rest of the world tends to turn off when told about America as the "home of Democracy". Phill